the nature of reality....

[Iwannaplato]

Don't know, I haven't read Nietsche

I have..

If he said that nothing makes sense,

He didn't.

then not only was he no philosopher, but he literally never said anything ever.

yes, there's nothing stranger than making logical arguments that nothing makes any sense, and then adding in one's philosophical positions, well, even stranger still.

And what a waste of time...
"The Birth of Tragedy" (1872)
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (1883-1885)
"Beyond Good and Evil" (1886)
"On the Genealogy of Morality" (1887)
"The Gay Science" (1882, 1887)
"Ecce Homo" (1888)
"Twilight of the Idols" (1889)
"The Antichrist" (1888)
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None" (1883–1885)
"The Will to Power" (Published posthumously in 1901)

And so many assertions in them about the world and the life in it. He could have pared the whole thing down to a pamphlet of gibberish phrases.
Maybe he just needed the money.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Don't know, I haven't read Nietsche

I have..

If he said that nothing makes sense,

He didn't.

then not only was he no philosopher, but he literally never said anything ever.

yes, there's nothing stranger than making logical arguments that nothing makes any sense, and then adding in one's philosophical positions, well, even stranger still.

And what a waste of time...
"The Birth of Tragedy" (1872)
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (1883-1885)
"Beyond Good and Evil" (1886)
"On the Genealogy of Morality" (1887)
"The Gay Science" (1882, 1887)
"Ecce Homo" (1888)
"Twilight of the Idols" (1889)
"The Antichrist" (1888)
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None" (1883–1885)
"The Will to Power" (Published posthumously in 1901)

And so many assertions in them about the world and the life in it. He could have pared the whole thing down to a pamphlet of gibberish phrases.
Maybe he just needed the money.

K: as usual, Iwanna is wrong, flat out wrong.. for my money,
Nietzsche was one of the 5 greatest philosophers of all time....
the problem with Iwanna is that he doesn't have ears to hear Nietzsche...
and the funny thing if asked, Kropotkin, do you believe in the philosophy
of N. and I am going to say, no...I disagree with his idea of the Übermensch,
and I disagree with his idea of the ''eternal reoccurrence''.. his two primary idea's
and I hate them both....but why do you think he is so great?

first of all, he was the first to understand what it meant that. ''god was dead''...
others had said it before, but they didn't get the full implications of what
it means to have a no-god world... and still, even after 140 years, people
still don't get the full implications of this notion that ''god is dead''...
and less the idea that ''we killed him''... without N. there is no existentialism...

and the next point is his talk about nihilism... his goal wasn't to create nihilism,
but to find a way to stop it... to end it....and his famous statement about
the next 100 years, or the next century, was going to be a nihilistic one,
which of course, he meant the 20th century, was right on....
the next century, the 20th, had the Two World Wars, the Holocaust,
the long cold war, Vietnam, the Atomic bomb....to name a few things
that were nihilisitic..... of course, I have defined Nihilism, as being
the denial, devaluation of human beings and their values....
and the 20th century could also be called the century of big business....
the almighty corporation and how it came to rule the world...
with big business nihilistic pursuit of profits and wealth...
or who could forget Bhopal in 1984 and other life taking events
that were created by the almighty pursuit of profits to the
exclusion of everything else...yah, that nihilism....

some other points about Nietzsche was his idea that we are
not some final product, but a step along the way, going from
animal, to being animal/human, and to finally becoming fully
human..... he uses the idea of a tightrope to bring out this idea...
in Zarathustra...

and the final point I will bring out and by doing so, I walk by
many different and brilliant ideas...
and that idea is this question of values...the act of creating
values is what makes a great person from an average person....

within the last year or so, I have reread all of Nietzsche works,
and of all of them, I like ''Beyond Good and Evil''.. and as a first book,
I would stay away from ''Ecco Homo''... until you have read the rest...
it talks about other books that can only make sense if you have read them...

Now, I am exhausted and shall take your leave...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

Dear Peter - the things you said support my position on Nietzsche.
My contention is that Nietzsche thought you COULD make sense.
Atla and I have been responding to someone who thinks Nietzsche thought one could not make sense, period. An epistemological nihilist.
You gave examples that supported my position on Nietzsche and you seem to think his books made sense - meaning you could understand them.

I understand, to a degree, how you misunderstood the context of Atla's conditional statement 'If N believed X....' and then misunderstood my response.

But everything your wrote indicates you disagree with the person Atla and I have been disagreeing with.

[Atla]

Don't know, I haven't read Nietsche

I have..

If he said that nothing makes sense,

He didn't.

then not only was he no philosopher, but he literally never said anything ever.

yes, there's nothing stranger than making logical arguments that nothing makes any sense, and then adding in one's philosophical positions, well, even stranger still.

And what a waste of time...
"The Birth of Tragedy" (1872)
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (1883-1885)
"Beyond Good and Evil" (1886)
"On the Genealogy of Morality" (1887)
"The Gay Science" (1882, 1887)
"Ecce Homo" (1888)
"Twilight of the Idols" (1889)
"The Antichrist" (1888)
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None" (1883–1885)
"The Will to Power" (Published posthumously in 1901)

And so many assertions in them about the world and the life in it. He could have pared the whole thing down to a pamphlet of gibberish phrases.
Maybe he just needed the money.

Indeed. It's one thing trying to make sense of meaninglessness. It's another thing entirely to really, fully attempt to go outside all sense. As if that was a possibility.

I mean it's a possibility, so in that case hfjsdsdhdshfaskjfhdsakjfhdsafdsfhkdjsahfkadsfddsafkdsahfkashdgfa dfsagdfsg FSK-proper dsfghbfdkgjs

[Angelo Cannata]

so in that case hfjsdsdhdshfaskjfhdsakjfhdsafdsfhkdjsahfkadsfddsafkdsahfkashdgfa dfsagdfsg FSK-proper dsfghbfdkgjs

This sounds like the joke story of those who lost their keys in a dark place and they decided to look for them in another place, because in the right one it was too dark. The same way, since acknowledging that things don't make sense is too uncomfortable, too unpleasant, too discouraging, like the random letters you wrote, then you decide that it is better to reject our critical conclusions and assume that things make sense.

[Angelo Cannata]

What I have said is actually just a different version of the fundamental contradiction of realism: if reality exists, then we, that is those who are thinking that reality exists, exist as well; but this means that the statement "reality exist" is always a subjective statement, because it always implies a dependence on a subjectivity that makes the statement. As a consequence, if reality exists, then it doesn't. Or: if the existence of reality makes sense, then, as a consequence, it doesn't make sense.

[Atla]

so in that case hfjsdsdhdshfaskjfhdsakjfhdsafdsfhkdjsahfkadsfddsafkdsahfkashdgfa dfsagdfsg FSK-proper dsfghbfdkgjs

This sounds like the joke story of those who lost their keys in a dark place and they decided to look for them in another place, because in the right one it was too dark. The same way, since acknowledging that things don't make sense is too uncomfortable, too unpleasant, too discouraging, like the random letters you wrote, then you decide that it is better to reject our critical conclusions and assume that things make sense.

You clearly don't understand what you're saying. We can't acknowledge that things don't make sense, it can't be uncomfortable, unpleasant or discouraging, because those are things that make sense.

[Atla]

What I have said is actually just a different version of the fundamental contradiction of realism:

Realism has no fundamental contradiction.

if reality exists, then we, that is those who are thinking that reality exists, exist as well; but this means that the statement "reality exist" is always a subjective statement, because it always implies a dependence on a subjectivity that makes the statement.

Okay

As a consequence, if reality exists, then it doesn't.

Yeah this doesn't follow in any way. Subjective statements have no bearing on objective reality.

Or: if the existence of reality makes sense, then, as a consequence, it doesn't make sense.

If it makes sense then it makes sense period.

[Iwannaplato]

so in that case hfjsdsdhdshfaskjfhdsakjfhdsafdsfhkdjsahfkadsfddsafkdsahfkashdgfa dfsagdfsg FSK-proper dsfghbfdkgjs

This sounds like the joke story of those who lost their keys in a dark place and they decided to look for them in another place, because in the right one it was too dark. The same way, since acknowledging that things don't make sense is too uncomfortable, too unpleasant, too discouraging, like the random letters you wrote, then you decide that it is better to reject our critical conclusions and assume that things make sense.

It's amazing that you manage to get to universalizing your sense of your situation. First we have our own experience(ing). You've come up with a strongly skeptical position on that. But then you argue that the not making sense you have discovered/drawn conclusions about, is the universal situation of any mind you encounter. So, there's this implicit argument leading to the universalized conclusion and the explicit argument you've described above, both coming from a mind arguing that nothing makes sense and that we don't make sense.

[Iwannaplato]

What I have said is actually just a different version of the fundamental contradiction of realism: if reality exists, then we, that is those who are thinking that reality exists, exist as well; but this means that the statement "reality exist" is always a subjective statement, because it always implies a dependence on a subjectivity that makes the statement. As a consequence, if reality exists, then it doesn't. Or: if the existence of reality makes sense, then, as a consequence, it doesn't make sense.

So, subjective statements can't make sense?
If you are correct, how could you possibly know anything about the people you are addressing?
Why aren't those conclusions fruit of your poison tree?

[Iwannaplato]

Kropotkin

So, Peter. I politely pointed out that you incorrectly read my post and attacked a position I do not have. Your post supported my claim that Nietzsche did think one could make sense.
viewtopic.php?p=695296#p695296

[Angelo Cannata]

Why aren't those conclusions fruit of your poison tree?

They are, definitely: our poison tree is our brain. It works the same way. You can't tell if you are under the effects of your poisoning tree, because the fact of being under those effects makes any thought unreliable. The same way, you can't tell anything about the reliability of what you think, because whatever you say is already under the effects of what you should assess, that is, your brain.
In short, this is the structure:
1) we start by agreeing with realism
2) we see that realism invalidates itself

Many people answer by saying that, since everything is invalidated, then number 2) is invalidated as well. In other words, if everything is invalidated, the invalidation itself is invalid. It is the same criticism when people say that, if everything is relative, then the statement "everything is relative" is relative as well, so it is untenable.

The problem with this criticism is that it doesn't allow us to assume that, as a consequence, something must be non relative, otherwise we are back to point 1) and the process restarts.

So, it might be true that, when I say that nothing makes sense, I am just under wrong effects of my brain. The problem is that this doesn't open any chance for the possibility of anything to make sense, because the conclusion that nothing makes sense was exactly a consequence of the assumption that something can make sense.

In other words, it is true that relativism demolishes itself, but this doesn't give us any hope that something has not been demolished. If something has not been demolished, this very hypothesis would drive us again to the conclusion that everything is relative.

[Iwannaplato]

Why aren't those conclusions fruit of your poison tree?

They are, definitely: our poison tree is our brain.

1) that's realism talk
2) how do you know it's not just your brain?

It works the same way. You can't tell if you are under the effects of your poisoning tree, because the fact of being under those effects makes any thought unreliable. The same way, you can't tell anything about the reliability of what you think, because whatever you say is already under the effects of what you should assess, that is, your brain.

Perfect realiability and making sense are two different things. And you are still allowing yourself to draw conclusions from facts.

So, it might be true that, when I say that nothing makes sense, I am just under wrong effects of my brain. The problem is that this doesn't open any chance for the possibility of anything to make sense, because the conclusion that nothing makes sense was exactly a consequence of the assumption that something can make sense.

And again: on what grounds do you universalize this? You've argued you have no grounds to make any sense. Yet you univesalize your conclusions

[Angelo Cannata]

You've argued you have no grounds to make any sense. Yet you univesalize your conclusions

Universalizing is at the starting point of the process, when I start by agreeing with realism, I start by being a realist.
Realism is universal, because, if reality exists objectively, then it is independent of our subjectivity. Independent of our subjectivity means it is the same for everyone. A stone is a stone for everyone, what can be different is what people think. If someone thinks that a stone is a bird, this doesn't turn the stone into a bird, the stone remains a stone. This means that the objectivity of a stone is universal, there are no exceptions, there is nothing particular or specific.
From this universal realist starting point, we are forced to admit the existence of ouselves as well. My existence is objectively universal as well. If I or somebody else thinks that I do not exist, this doesn't cancel my existence. So, at this point of seeing the existence of ourselves, we are still in the context of realism and universalism.
Next step is realizing that, if all of this reasoning comes from me, who's existence has universal objectivity, then all of this reasoning is not universal, because it is entirely depending on my subjectivity, my brain, my particularity. Here, in this step, is the jump from the universal into the particular.
From now on, everything I say has to be considered particular, local, limited.
At this point, we deduce that, as a consequence, this particularity has to be applied to the whole process, since the beginning. This means that, when I started by being a realist, actually this was only an illusion.
Now we are at the stage where the destruction comes out as destruction of itself.
In this context you are right, I cannot assume anything about what happens to other people, other brains, other perspectives.
The problem is that, so far, nobody has been able to give evidence of being in a situation different from mine. This can be still just another effect of my limitations.
I just see some things from inside my poisoned brain:
- so far, nobody has been able to give any evidence of being in a situation different from mine
- I am not alone in this situation: I can see that a lot of other people and philosophers agree with me
- I can see a difference between my position and realists: I take into consideration criticism and plurality of perspectives, while they don't.
Are you in a situation different from mine? Why should I think that your brain is not poisoned, like mine, by the simple fact of being a brain, that, as such, cannot think about itself without interfering with itself?
I am not universal, sure; do you think you are in a different situation?

[Angelo Cannata]

Moreover, saying that I cannot universalize, isn't itself a universalizing statement? How can you say that I cannot universalize, since you are saying this from the particularity of your perspective?